Libertarian Fascists for Mother Russia

[DGuller]

Yeah, I've considered his post, and clearly he is right - libertarians are really just fascists. That is the only possible conclusion for anyone thinking clearly about what the term means, and what the people who describe themselves as "libertarian" believe.

Are you really this fucking insane?  The big part of why you and grumbler keep calling me tribal, aside from it being your favorite empty insult, is that you do a really good job at reading what you want to read, and not what was actually written.

Right, I am sure you mean something else entirely when you trotted out how libertarians came about because of the feds cracking down on fascism, and how you "aren't surprised" that libertarians are in bed with fascists.


Not that you aren't surprised Paul is in bed with fascists, but libertarians in general - Paul is, of course, typical of "libertarians".


Of course, you got one part right - this is just your personal, and well known, bias speaking.

I may have been sloppy with defining what kinds of quoted libertarians I was talking about in the first post, but I think I elaborated sufficiently by the second post.  So you really have no excuse now to keep misrepresenting what I said.

[Berkut]

Nothing you said in any subsequent post makes your original post any less idiotically stupid.

Well, yes, the younger fascierrrh, "libertarians" just inherit their fascism, and are of course too stupid to understand where it comes from...

Whatever Guller - I thought you had kind of unjumped the shark the last year or so, but I see I was clearly mistaken.

I like how you put quotes around "libertarian" but of course NOT around "fascists". So we can be ultra clear what you mean.

[DGuller]

Nothing you said in any subsequent post makes your original post any less idiotically stupid.

Of course not, my original post wasn't that stupid to begin with.

Whatever Guller - I thought you had kind of unjumped the shark the last year or so, but I see I was clearly mistaken.

With all due respect, you're not in position to express such patronizing disappointment.  You're just a peer poster, and one far more prone to bouts of total irrationality than you give yourself credit for.

But, yes, you were mistaken.  I never jumped the shark in the first place.  What happened in the last year was that you weren't around much to debate politics, so your "the truth is somewhere in the middle" life philosophy and my disdain for that kind of philosophy didn't clash as often.  I do in fact think that issue by issue, the truth is often enough way over on one side, and not mildly worded.

[Berkut]

No, your characterization of me is so patently ridiculous, it is as bad as calling libertarians closet fascists.

I don't believe the truth is in the middle, I just don't believe any side has a monopoly on it. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes not.

I've said that a thousand times, and you continue to ignore it and lie about it.

Our contentions are never about my beliefs - sometimes they agree with you (probably more often than not) but rather about you and your tendency to go all and partisan and paint the "others" as being completely insane - like linking libertarians and fascists. It is so patently ridiculous a characterization, but no more so than claiming that I am always in the middle I suppose. Don't let the facts cloud your ideology.

[DGuller]

No, your characterization of me is so patently ridiculous, it is as bad as calling libertarians closet fascists.

I don't believe the truth is in the middle, I just don't believe any side has a monopoly on it. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes not.

I've said that a thousand times, and you continue to ignore it and lie about it.

Our contentions are never about my beliefs - sometimes they agree with you (probably more often than not) but rather about you and your tendency to go all and partisan and paint the "others" as being completely insane - like linking libertarians and fascists. It is so patently ridiculous a characterization, but no more so than claiming that I am always in the middle I suppose. Don't let the facts cloud your ideology.

I've said I'm not a "tribalist" or "partisan" pretty often as well, and yet you continue to ignore it as well.  I guess we both perceive each other somewhat differently than we perceive ourselves.

[Berkut]

No, your characterization of me is so patently ridiculous, it is as bad as calling libertarians closet fascists.

I don't believe the truth is in the middle, I just don't believe any side has a monopoly on it. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes not.

I've said that a thousand times, and you continue to ignore it and lie about it.

Our contentions are never about my beliefs - sometimes they agree with you (probably more often than not) but rather about you and your tendency to go all and partisan and paint the "others" as being completely insane - like linking libertarians and fascists. It is so patently ridiculous a characterization, but no more so than claiming that I am always in the middle I suppose. Don't let the facts cloud your ideology.

I've said I'm not a "tribalist" or "partisan" pretty often as well, and yet you continue to ignore it as well.  I guess we both perceive each other somewhat differently than we perceive ourselves.

The difference is that me concluding that you are a partisan is simply that - my conclusion based on the evidence provided by you doing things like equating libertarians to fascists. It is an opinion - a well supported opinion, but still just an opinion. I might be wrong, but it is honestly held.

You claiming that I am always in the middle is just demonstrably wrong, and you know it simply is not true. But you have to hold onto it because it is the cornerstone of your defense against being such a partisan shill. But it is a lie, and when you say it, you know full well that it isn't true. There are so many examples of where I've come down firmly on one side or another of an issue it isn't even funny - hell, I come down on a "side" much more often than I ever come down "in the middle". I just don't come down on one side or another based on my allegiance to some group or another - at least outside my allegiance to rationality and objectivity.

And you know this is true, and yet you say the opposite over and over and over again. That is called lying.

It is sad the extent that otherwise decent people will go to defend their own ideological myopia.


Not to mention how often it completely derails discussion. I am starting to wonder if you do it intentionally, like maybe this is your game, to see how many otherwise interesting discussions you can troll into another bullshit debate like this one by blithely coming along and equating libertarians with fascists.

[DGuller]

No, your characterization of me is so patently ridiculous, it is as bad as calling libertarians closet fascists.

I don't believe the truth is in the middle, I just don't believe any side has a monopoly on it. Sometimes it is in the middle sometimes not.

I've said that a thousand times, and you continue to ignore it and lie about it.

Our contentions are never about my beliefs - sometimes they agree with you (probably more often than not) but rather about you and your tendency to go all and partisan and paint the "others" as being completely insane - like linking libertarians and fascists. It is so patently ridiculous a characterization, but no more so than claiming that I am always in the middle I suppose. Don't let the facts cloud your ideology.

I've said I'm not a "tribalist" or "partisan" pretty often as well, and yet you continue to ignore it as well.  I guess we both perceive each other somewhat differently than we perceive ourselves.

The difference is that me concluding that you are a partisan is simply that - my conclusion based on the evidence provided by you doing things like equating libertarians to fascists. It is an opinion - a well supported opinion, but still just an opinion. I might be wrong, but it is honestly held.

You claiming that I am always in the middle is just demonstrably wrong, and you know it simply is not true. But you have to hold onto it because it is the cornerstone of your defense against being such a partisan shill. But it is a lie, and when you say it, you know full well that it isn't true. There are so many examples of where I've come down firmly on one side or another of an issue it isn't even funny - hell, I come down on a "side" much more often than I ever come down "in the middle". I just don't come down on one side or another based on my allegiance to some group or another - at least outside my allegiance to rationality and objectivity.

And you know this is true, and yet you say the opposite over and over and over again. That is called lying.

It is sad the extent that otherwise decent people will go to defend their own ideological myopia.


Not to mention how often it completely derails discussion. I am starting to wonder if you do it intentionally, like maybe this is your game, to see how many otherwise interesting discussions you can troll into another bullshit debate like this one by blithely coming along and equating libertarians with fascists.

Speaking of fucking insane...

You are right, though, I was clearly wrong to say that you're always in the middle on any issue.  That was again a sloppy attempt to avoid writing too much.  What I should've said, and have been saying often enough in the past, is that you avoid taking a position that may appear partisan, to an extreme.  In fact, you make a very big deal about the your awesome lack of partisanship, and use it as a club to beat others.

The latest example is the thread where you bemoan the influence of money on politics, but somehow manage to fail to identify the influence of Republican party and their appointed justices as a pretty significant factor in destroying legal barriers to more money in politics.  Worse than that, you go into your usual Drazi diatribe when I bring that up.  I often get the feeling that appearing to be non-partisan is far more important to you than trying to understand how issues come about.

[grumbler]

I'm trying to think of an ideology more diametrically opposed to libertarianism than fascism, and coming up blank.  The idea that they are equivalent, or that one could slide from one to the other, is laughable on its face.  I wonder: did the tribal who came up with that idea want to cast aspersions on fascism, or on libertarianism, with that whopper?

[Tamas]

Yeah, I've considered his post, and clearly he is right - libertarians are really just fascists. That is the only possible conclusion for anyone thinking clearly about what the term means, and what the people who describe themselves as "libertarian" believe.

Are you really this fucking insane?  The big part of why you and grumbler keep calling me tribal, aside from it being your favorite empty insult, is that you do a really good job at reading what you want to read, and not what was actually written.

actually you wrote what he said. And you are tribal.

[DGuller]

Yeah, I've considered his post, and clearly he is right - libertarians are really just fascists. That is the only possible conclusion for anyone thinking clearly about what the term means, and what the people who describe themselves as "libertarian" believe.

Are you really this fucking insane?  The big part of why you and grumbler keep calling me tribal, aside from it being your favorite empty insult, is that you do a really good job at reading what you want to read, and not what was actually written.

actually you wrote what he said. And you are tribal.

I never said that libertarians are fascists.  I just said that some of the so-called libertarians are in fact sympathetic to an ideology rather different to libertarianism.  They're libertarians only as long as the government doesn't agree with them.  And I'm not nearly as tribal as some make me out.

[Jacob]

I'm trying to think of an ideology more diametrically opposed to libertarianism than fascism, and coming up blank.  The idea that they are equivalent, or that one could slide from one to the other, is laughable on its face.  I wonder: did the tribal who came up with that idea want to cast aspersions on fascism, or on libertarianism, with that whopper?

Some people appear to think that they're two great flavours that go well together - like this random internet blogger who says Libertarians should embrace Pinochet: http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fascist-libertarianism-for-a-better-world/ - and that hardcore statism is required to implement a Libertarian society (much like Communist totalitarianism was "necessary intermediate step" to reach a socialist utopia).

A little more seriously, it does seem to me that some of the reactionary right has bestowed the label "Libertarian" upon themselves while holding on to various bigotries, esp. racism, and primarily focusing on the freedom of using money and guns to keep other people in line. Calling it fascism is a rhetorical bridge too far, I think, but it is nonetheless seems a curious reactionary kind of libertarianism.

[Admiral Yi]

"Using money and guns to keep people in line?"  What does that mean?

[grumbler]

Some people appear to think that they're two great flavours that go well together - like this random internet blogger who says Libertarians should embrace Pinochet: http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fascist-libertarianism-for-a-better-world/ - and that hardcore statism is required to implement a Libertarian society (much like Communist totalitarianism was "necessary intermediate step" to reach a socialist utopia).

Actually, he is arguing against libertarianism because it is so far from what he thinks is needed (fascism).  he's simply arguing that libertarians should abandon their libertarian goals and support fascism because libertarianism can't overthrow Evol Society.

A little more seriously, it does seem to me that some of the reactionary right has bestowed the label "Libertarian" upon themselves while holding on to various bigotries, esp. racism, and primarily focusing on the freedom of using money and guns to keep other people in line. Calling it fascism is a rhetorical bridge too far, I think, but it is nonetheless seems a curious reactionary kind of libertarianism.

Oh, I agree that there are those who misuse the word libertarian, even to describe themselves, just as others misuse "communist" or "liberal."  But authoritarian libertarianism is an oxymoron.

[Jacob]

Oh, I agree that there are those who misuse the word libertarian, even to describe themselves, just as others misuse "communist" or "liberal."  But authoritarian libertarianism is an oxymoron.

We're in agreement then, with the addition that there seems to be more of that going around recently; that was my read of what dguller was saying as well.

[Tonitrus]

All threads seem to end up turning into languishites arguing about how they argue.